Bible Prophecy as Evidence of a bible writers trustworthiness

[firedragon]

The canon of scripture was decided by scholars, guided by the Holy Spirit.

So there was no Holy Spirit when they but the epistle of Barnabas in the Bible? What happened?

 

[Audie]

Information on the present situation is easily accessed.
[52 Countries Where the Bible is Illegal | Love Packages]

All the soviet bloc countries banned the Bible, and if one looks back in history then one can mulltiply the number.

What this tells us is that the Bible is no ordinary book. It inspires belief, and followers. Why would that be, if it's just a piece of ordinary literature?

There is a promise that comes with belief in Jesus. 'Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:'

Receiving the Holy Spirit is an experience that 'born again' believers know is real. They are endowed with a Spirit that is not their own.

A lot of wasted words sincr
you did not identify countries where other
"holy " books are "banned" or "illegal"( misleading word)
In most of those countries the bible is available.
Here is thevworlds most banned book.
https://theculturetrip.com/north-am...s-book-has-been-banned-in-the-most-countries/

How popular or unpopular a book is does not
indicate its validity. See " Harry Potter".

 

[Audie]

I love it when people raise the banner 'Reason is everything, faith is nothing'. It confirms what God has said in Psalm 14. And, knowing that God is loving and kind, we can only assume that he's being generous in calling atheists 'fools'. Much stronger language could easily be employed.

Atheists hate miracles. They hate prophecy, they hate the idea of the Red Sea parting, the virgin conception, of Jesus healing, of Jesus walking on water and stilling the storm, of Jesus casting out evil spirits, of Jesus raising the dead, of Jesus being resurrected, and of Jesus ascending to heaven. It's all too much for a very limited understanding of life.

Yet, without even realising it, these same 'scientifically minded' individuals believe in a miracle. They observe the miracle, study it, and then claim its all an accident. But here's the problem: scientific minds have concluded that the universe has existed for 13.8 billion years, or near enough. The universe had a beginning, which means that before the universe existed, there was no universe. Nothing that constituted 'matter'. O dear! No matter to observe! No time or space.

The crowd with the banner, 'Reason is everything, faith is nothing', now have a dilemma. How can this state of unreasonableness be explained? Well, clearly it cannot, for 'nothing' is not a concept, and 'God' does not appear in the equations studied by scientists. Yet, given the two options, God or nothing, the former appears far more rational. To say that nothing existed before the universe is like saying there was a miracle but it had no cause. To say that God existed explains the miracle, and demonstrates that science is actually studying a miracle!

With this new way of seeing the world, miracles do not appear so odd, or irrational.

Show us ONE example of anyone here saying
"Reason is everything, faith is nothing".

When you fail to, what will that tell you
about yourself?

There is no dilemma is saying " i dont know".
Your notion of theoretical physics is so cartoonish, its embarrassing to read.

Less funny are things you make up for the
sole purpose of mocking people.

The " reason everything " claim.
The " hate" claim.
"Miracle, limited mindset, claim accident..."

All baloney. Again, you can produce no
examples.

I notice you too are unwilling to face the fact that your " miracle" flood never happened.
It may be because its too much for limited understanding to handle.

If you like to identify people with dilemmas, try that one on.

 

[ppp]

And how many copies of those books contained prophesies that apparently came true — as there is virtually no attempt of debunking found in writings from their day?
If, as you claim, some of these prophecies were written after the fact, such deception would have been exposed by contemporaries, and the Bible would have been discarded into trash.

Is that what we see? No….the Bible, a collection of books from a relatively obscure nation, has been distributed worldwide and has survived numerous attacks throughout it’s history, still achieving fame as THE most published book ever, currently in over 3300 languages.

Only those looking for confirmation bias, would ignore this fact.

You are raising "issues" that have no bearing on the truth of the claim that there is a God.

 

[Audie]

You are raising "issues" that have no bearing on the truth of the claim that there is a God.

Is that the claim? Its not the thread title.

In the event, you are correct that theres quite the flood of unrelated comments from the theists.
No willingness to address the big counterexample of unfulfilled prophecy..

 

[ElishaElijah]

You are raising "issues" that have no bearing on the truth of the claim that there is a God.

Are you looking for scientific proof? Testimony of people who are alive currently? Observation of creation? What exactly are you looking for when you say no proof?

 

[Audie]

Are you looking for scientific proof? Testimony of people who are alive currently? Observation of creation? What exactly are you looking for when you say no proof?

Maybe best to stick to prophecy as evidence,
as disproving god is clearly impossible.

 

[ppp]

Is that the claim? Its not the thread title.

No? Aren't we talking about the Bible writers trust worthiness that there is a God?

 

[Audie]

No? Aren't we talking about the Bible writers trust worthiness that there is a God?

Just so it doesnt devolve to something
aboit proof.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Maybe best to stick to prophecy as evidence,
as disproving god is clearly impossible.

Fulfilled Prophecy is one of the tests that the God of the Bible is the only true God.

 

[ppp]

Are you looking for scientific proof? Testimony of people who are alive currently? Observation of creation? What exactly are you looking for when you say no proof?

Whenever I hear (or make) a claim, I am looking for whatever can distinguish that claim from a) imagination, and b) other known explanations.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Faith is shown to bring about evidence.

Not sure how that makes sense.

Faith isn't a pathway to truth, as far as I can tell, because anything can be (and is) believed on faith.

For example, Noah believed that God was going to flood a wicked world. Noah followed God's will, and build an ark in the desert. What would have happened if he had waited for the flood before building his ark?

That's just a story in an old book.
The same book that is trying to tell you that faith is a good thing.

It's hard to stomach, but the unbeliever goes to his death stubbornly holding to the belief that his own finite intellect is greater than the Creator's! Maybe it's time you started listening to the claims!

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Unbelievers don't believe in any Creators in the first place so I don't think they're attributing human qualities to some deity they don't believe in.

Faith isn't evidence.
I need evidence to be convinced that a claim is true. Got any?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible is a complete outlook, governed by the opening verse, informing us that God is the Creator.

Faith gets us to where God wants us to go. Without faith in God, one is left building faith in things that pass away.
Matthew 6:19-21. 'Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.'

Faith is trust, and without faith all our relationships would fail.

From the Christian perspective, Jesus is the face of God. To trust in Jesus is to trust in God. We do not know what he looks like, we cannot see him physically, but we can hear his voice. It's a still small voice that appeals to the heart. Not everyone who reads the scriptures can hear his voice speak to their heart, but many can!

So rather than give evidence, you're going to quote a book at me that wants you to believe on faith?
Sorry but that won't cut it for me.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Whenever I hear (or make) a claim, I am looking for whatever can distinguish that claim from a) imagination, and b) other known causes.

Problem with these discussions that I see is there aren’t any set conditions or agreement on history or the people involved for example, do you believe any of the history that’s recorded in Scripture because there were court historians at the time people were alive. If these records aren’t even acknowledged I’m not sure how anyone can have an honest debate or discussion. Anything in the past at that point can be denied.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Information on the present situation is easily accessed.
[52 Countries Where the Bible is Illegal | Love Packages]

All the soviet bloc countries banned the Bible, and if one looks back in history then one can mulltiply the number.

What this tells us is that the Bible is no ordinary book. It inspires belief, and followers. Why would that be, if it's just a piece of ordinary literature?

There is a promise that comes with belief in Jesus. 'Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:'

Receiving the Holy Spirit is an experience that 'born again' believers know is real. They are endowed with a Spirit that is not their own.

That argument doesn't really make sense to me.
The book American Psycho was banned in my country when it came out because the powers that be thought it would encourage sociopathic behaviour. So it's obviously not just "a piece of ordinary literature," right?

 

[ppp]

for example, do you believe any of the history that’s recorded in Scripture because their were court historians at the time people were alive.

To a point. For instance, I accept that there was probably a King David, and probably a city of Jericho. I believe that there was a Babylonian Exile that happened mostly as it is recorded, as much of the text is corroborated by people from the other side. I do not accept that there was a worldwide flood, as there is overwhelming evidence against it.

Does that answer the question you are asking?


.

 

[Audie]

Fulfilled Prophecy is one of the tests that the God of the Bible is the only true God.

A test, but not proof.

Suppose you wanted evidence that some other god is not the one true god.
What evidence would youmlook for in that book?
What kind of thing would be evidence that the book is not about the one true God?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Boy, I love when people try to tell me what atheists believe.
Atheists don't believe in God(s). That's it.
They can believe or not believe in a whole entire host of other things and I'd dare say that no two atheists think exactly alike.

I love it when people raise the banner 'Reason is everything, faith is nothing'. It confirms what God has said in Psalm 14. And, knowing that God is loving and kind, we can only assume that he's being generous in calling atheists 'fools'. Much stronger language could easily be employed.

Has anyone demonstrated that faith is a reliable pathway to truth? More so than reason and logic? Because my experience is the opposite.

Demonstrate that faith is a reliable pathway to truth, as reliable as reason, logic, the scientific method, etc. and I'll use it instead. I've yet to see any such demonstration.

Atheists hate miracles. They hate prophecy, they hate the idea of the Red Sea parting, the virgin conception, of Jesus healing, of Jesus walking on water and stilling the storm, of Jesus casting out evil spirits, of Jesus raising the dead, of Jesus being resurrected, and of Jesus ascending to heaven. It's all too much for a very limited understanding of life.

What I actually don't like is believing in things that aren't true. What I want is to believe as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many false things as possible.
When someone can demonstrate that miracles occur, or virgin births or evil spirits or whatever, then that's the time to believe and not before.
Nobody has ever demonstrated the existence of evil spirits and so I don't believe in them.
Nobody has ever demonstrated that miracles from God occur and so I don't believe in them.
It's pretty simple, really.

Yet, without even realising it, these same 'scientifically minded' individuals believe in a miracle. They observe the miracle, study it, and then claim its all an accident. But here's the problem: scientific minds have concluded that the universe has existed for 13.8 billion years, or near enough. The universe had a beginning, which means that before the universe existed, there was no universe. Nothing that constituted 'matter'. O dear! No matter to observe! No time or space.

Atheists may believe this, or they may not. Atheism is simply a response to God claims.

The crowd with the banner, 'Reason is everything, faith is nothing', now have a dilemma. How can this state of unreasonableness be explained? Well, clearly it cannot, for 'nothing' is not a concept, and 'God' does not appear in the equations studied by scientists. Yet, given the two options, God or nothing, the former appears far more rational. To say that nothing existed before the universe is like saying there was a miracle but it had no cause. To say that God existed explains the miracle, and demonstrates that science is actually studying a miracle!

With this new way of seeing the world, miracles do not appear so odd, or irrational.

I don't think "no thing" can exist in the first place because that doesn't make much sense to me.
But it seems to me that believers are in the same boat, left having to explain where the God they worship comes from.

I don't know how the universe got here. That's the most honest answer I can provide to that question at this time.

If you think "God did it" is the more rational explanation, you'd have to explain why. Because I don't see it. And you'd also have to explain where God came from.

 

[Audie]

Problem with these discussions that I see is there aren’t any set conditions or agreement on history or the people involved for example, do you believe any of the history that’s recorded in Scripture because there were court historians at the time people were alive. If these records aren’t even acknowledged I’m not sure how anyone can have an honest debate or discussion. Anything in the past at that point can be denied.

True to an extent.
Depends on whether you can cross check.

If the history says that a mountain grew in Egypt, well, go look for it.

Some bible stories hold up reasonably well,
others fall apart.

 

[sojourner]

That's right: a person would need to accept a lot of prior clsims before seeing prophecy claims as reasonable.

... and I think theists can appreciate this. After all, was it prophecy claims that convinced you of your religion?


Sure it is.

You’re correct. Especially given the fact that prophecies aren’t primarily about future prediction, were originally mostly given orally, and were never intended to lend credibility to ancient texts.